Enabling jaw (Java-atk-wrapper) by default ? (Bug#900912)
- To: Matthias Klose <email@example.com>
- Cc: Paul Gevers <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Vincent Privat <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Debian Java <email@example.com>, josm-dev <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Kevin Kenny <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Enabling jaw (Java-atk-wrapper) by default ? (Bug#900912)
- From: Samuel Thibault <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2019 12:08:31 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20190407100830.s7vorqndi7t4t7dt@function>
- Mail-followup-to: Matthias Klose <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Paul Gevers <email@example.com>, Vincent Privat <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Debian Java <firstname.lastname@example.org>, josm-dev <email@example.com>, Kevin Kenny <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <CABBycTS9h3vr7Oue2F4M9u==-CRPEi2Pv9iswLPAzmTKFAmWXQ@mail.gmail.com> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CABBycTTUu=7FwDZTKDBrR_TEiPrGvRtVn4gBM61M5eQ+dxXccA@mail.gmail.com> <20190401135417.ljmzfm6gspsbkybh@function> <20190401152429.rt7wdnxcot7w2mwr@function> <email@example.com> <20190406065539.lw3peamhpvo7mzc6@function> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Matthias Klose, le sam. 06 avril 2019 15:46:21 +0200, a ecrit:
> On 06.04.19 15:13, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > We're late already, I would want this rather sooner than latter
> > in buster, such that there is some real live testing before we release.
> > Sure, there are chances for bugs, but if that's the case, let's find
> > them and fix them.
> I disagree. I'll do the next upload with Samuel's proposed patches, not
> enabling that by default, together with the planned security update. Then
> people can start testing if the wrapper works.
Well, I'm afraid that what will happen is that the people who will
test will simply find out that it just works for them (just like it
does already for them with openjdk-8) ; will we then conclude near the
release that it should be enabled by default for Buster, and then be hit
by the much wider exposition to jaw?
If on the contrary we enable it by default during the freeze, we will
have *way* more testing coverage, and thus be much more confident with
keeping it enabled by default in Buster if we don't see bug reports.
> Enabling features during the freeze which were broken most of the time
> during the development cycle sounds risky.
Just ftr: what was broken was the load of jaw in openjdk-11, jaw itself
seems to work in openjdk-8 for people needing it.